Upper Left

Monday, December 31, 2007

We'll raise a cup o' kindness...

...or two or three. I'm off for the perfect tavern in a bit. Specials, hats, horns, the whole deal is planned, and of course, mentioning the blog will, as always, get you a cold one on me.

It's been a mixed year, as always. On a personal level, it's been another year with the Brilliant and Beautiful Bride of Upper Left, a year spent watching The Quarterback grow before our eyes. Doesn't get a lot better than that.

The blog's still trucking along - over 6,000 posts now, closing in on a quarter million served and still enough fun to show up for every day.

Our country still suffers, though. The wounds to our liberty, our security, our reputation and our physical and economic health will not be healed simply by the passage of time. The body politic is infected, and it will take our attention and our effort in the coming year to begin what will doubtless be a long, and sometimes painful, course of treatment.

I'll be raising one of those cups to all y'all later tonight. Till then,

Whereas…

Out of panic and ideology, President Bush squandered America’s position of moral and political leadership, swept aside international institutions and treaties, sullied America’s global image, and trampled on the constitutional pillars that have supported our democracy through the most terrifying and challenging times. These policies have fed the world’s anger and alienation and have not made any of us safer.

Something to strive for in the New Year.

“I’m frustrated as hell with the rise of the blogosphere,” says Christian Sinderman, a local Democratic consultant. “Blogs, for me, are this weird nether region … it’s usually stuff that’s not quite good enough to ended up printed somewhere, but it’s not quite nothing enough to end up going into the ether.”

Our new motto?

Upper Left: "Not quite nothing enough to end up going into the ether."

And now...

Saturday, December 29, 2007

On impossibility.

You can't poll Iowa.

Polling is problematic everywhere, but it just can't be done for a caucus. The effect of human interaction in a precinct caucus where pleas are heard, offers are made and deals are cut face to face with real people from down the block defies prediction.

Everyone's heard about the 15% threshold required to earn a share of the delegates at a precinct, but most of the speculation has been around which of the big three candidates might benefit most from the supporters of candidates who don't make the cut. The range of speculation about that possibility alone is enough to cast doubt on the validity of pre-caucus polling.

It's even weirder than that, though. There's no reason the second tier candidate's supporters have to go to the big 3 at all. If they have the numbers, they can band together under the banner of any candidate, or of no candidate at all. And all those undecided voters in those polls? They can stay undecided. "Uncommitted" is an eligible delegate category, if you can assemble 15% of the attendees.

Not complicated enough to confound the pollsters, you say? Well, consider that if the candidates who have made threshold have an attendee or two to spare, they might shift them around for their own strategic advantage. For instance, suppose three candidates have made threshold, with one having a lead that allows them to select more delegates than the other. A savvy supporter of the second or third place candidate might watch the sign in sheet with an eye beyond the immediate outcome of their precinct and begin cutting the deal that brings a fourth candidate to threshold, which might deprive the top candidate of a delegate or two.

And there's that neighborhood thing. These are people you know, people who wave when you drive by, people who nod at the corner store, people you do business with, people whose kids play with your kids. People you’d usually like to help out, if you can. When that guy in the bright gold IAFF for Dodd shirt standing next to the sign in table says he just needs one or two more folks to get out of the room as a delegate, and that's real important to him and to his union, what do you suppose the odds are that one or two of that firefighter's neighbors, through friendship, respect for his role in the community or labor solidarity, will step up and help him out?

Thursday, December 27, 2007

It's terrible, sure…

…but that doesn't make it terrorism.

Benazir Bhutto seemed to be a confounding blend of courage, controversy and corruption, but I think it's more accurate to describe her death as a plain, if plainly tragic, political assassination rather than an act of terrorism. If every act of political violence is labeled terror, then soon the horror behind the label will become diluted, if not invisible.

Trying to fit this into some kind of GWOT framework is dishonest and an insult to the memory of Ms. Bhutto and the very real risks she willingly faced for her country.

Care for some innuendo with your news?

David D. Kirkpatrick has ginned up some controversy by passing on a small smear from an anonymous campaign (my emphasis)...

But the Edwards campaign may have expected the support of the group, Alliance for a New America, set up by a local of the Service Employees International Union. An Oct. 8 e-mail message circulated among the union leaders who created the group suggests that they were talking with Edwards campaign officials about “what specific kinds of support they would like to see from us” just as they were planning to create an outside group to advertise in early primary states with “a serious 527 legal structure.”

The message, sent by the president of one of the locals involved, was obtained by a rival campaign.

"…may have expected…"

Don'cha just love that? May have. Maybe not.

Not even "…probably expected." Nope, that would take, well, some kind of evidence or something.

Of course, there is evidence. The memo itself. But that's a problem for the smear mongers.

See, the description of the memo makes it pretty clear that the SEIU was looking at the legitimate ways that it could coordinate it's support directly with the campaign before pulling the trigger by forming a 527 and cutting off that direct contact. All normal, legal interactions between unions and campaigns.

Because the most effective way for unions to reach out beyond their membership is sometimes the use of 527s, I disagree with the Edwards' campaign's disavowal their independent expenditures. There are abusive uses of the independent organizations, no doubt, but the solution to bad speech, they say, is often more speech. If the price of unhindered political speech and activity on behalf of political candidates and issues is the potential for abuse, it's a small price, best paid in the coin of diligent oversight and enforcement of the applicable regulations.

There's just no there there. It's a shameful performance for the Times, but they could make amends by coming clean on the source.

A dip into the memory hole…

I like to remind people who long for bipartisanship that FDR's drive to create Social Security was as divisive as Bush's attempt to dismantle it. And we got Social Security because FDR wasn't afraid of division. In his great Madison Square Garden speech, he declared of the forces of "organized money": "Never before in all our history have these forces been so united against one candidate as they stand today. They are unanimous in their hate for me-and I welcome their hatred."

Wednesday, December 26, 2007

From the "Stuff I just don't get" file...

The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission said Wednesday that employers could reduce or eliminate health benefits for retirees when they turn 65 and become eligible for Medicare.

The policy, set forth in a new regulation, allows employers to establish two classes of retirees, with more comprehensive benefits for those under 65 and more limited benefits — or none at all — for those older.

I mean, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission deliberately created two classes of employees? Two classes unequal in their provision of benefits?

I'm atop a ridge…

…in the heart of the Puget Sound convergence zone, so the weather here at Upper Left world headquarters isn't always typical of the region, but right now we're piling up some white Xmas in the yard, and a bit on the street to boot. Happily, we're not moving from this spot until the a.m., but travel for the company we're expecting may get a bit dicey. Not too, though, I hope.

While I wait for the arrival of friends and relations, I've got the plunder so far to keep me busy. A couple DVDs - Spiderman 3 and A Prairie Home Companion - and a bunch of books - Colbert's "I Am America (And So Can You)", the Onion atlas, "Our Dumb World" and a massive history of the U.S. Army - and a new sweater to keep me warm while I watch, read and munch on the feast of goodies laid out by the Brilliant and Beautiful Bride of Upper Left.

Doesn't get much better. Hope your day is going nearly as well.

Update: The snow put a beautiful blanket on the evergreens and a perfect frosting on the bare branches of everything else for the arrival of our dinner company, and then had the good form to revert to rain and clear the streets for safe travel before their departure. How good can it get?

Well, even better from the plunder standpoint. Another book - Glenn Greenwald's "How Would A Patriot Act?" and a new oversized Starbucks mug. I actually prefer Tully's' beans (got some of that, too) but Starbucks always has the best mugs, and the Elder Daughter of Upper Left and her Perpetually Pleasing Partner never disappoint with their annual selection.

Worth repeating.

Here is another point that the political writers confuse for us. They call any disagreement an attack or slam. Debate is good. Attacks are personal insults. Debate is about policy, plans, issues, positions. Debate uses logic, seeks to illuminate. Attacks seek to confuse and misrepresent.

Of course, it's not just political writers that create the problem. As Mary points out, it's become standard for the Clinton camp to characterize every disagreement as 'mud.' Until the pundits and pols alike drop this line, there's no way to get the honest debate we need to pick the best nominee.

The reason for the season?

Things that make me go hmmm…

In 1996, when he was running for a seat in the Illinois Senate, Obama's campaign filled out a questionnaire flatly stating that he did not support capital punishment. By 2004, his position was that he supported the death penalty "in theory" but felt the system was so flawed that a national moratorium on executions was required.

Today, he doesn't talk about a moratorium and says the death penalty is appropriate for "some crimes — mass murder, the rape and murder of a child — so heinous that the community is justified in expressing the full measure of its outrage."

I don't really have a problem with politicians, or anyone, really, who change positions. People do learn, and do change. Politicians who change from the right position to the wrong one, though? Something else again.

Sunday, December 23, 2007

Quote of the day.

"We now have confirmation of two facts we have known for some time: one, the Federal Reserve System is not a strong advocate for consumers, and two, there is no Santa Claus. People who are surprised by the one are presumably surprised by the other."

And again…

Every step that any government takes in providing either recognition or authority to any religion, is a step away from democracy. That's unavoidable, no matter the religion involved. The moment you have a government that acknowledges any religion as the true religion, you have a government in which some animals are far more equal than others.

Yep.

You act is if there were no other alternative to progressive and liberal interests than the Democratic Party. That’s right, I sure do. I have looked high and low, near and far, with microscopes and telescopes, I talked to Jesus and the Gypsies, I read history and political science, and there is no other way.

Saturday, December 22, 2007

Good…

It may be that this one will take more of our time and effort than any race in '08. I admit that it's hard to gin up a lot of personal enthusiasm for the Governor, but it gets a little easier every time I consider the alternative.

Health care, please…

Well, yeah…

"...perhaps we are being too literal in believing that "hope" and bipartisanship are things that Obama naively believes are present and possible, when in fact they are a tactic, a method of subverting and breaking the unified conservative power structure."

And perhaps he naively believes those things are present and possible.

It's an important point, and should Obama become our nominee, I'm hoping Mark Schmitt's best case is itself present. It's possible.

"...definitely hypocritical, absolutely."

It's a doozy, attacking Obama for opposing health insurance mandates - which happens to be position of the union itself - and invoking John Edwards' name in a pull quote without ever mentioning Hillary herself. It's a "let's you and him fight" piece which has managed to confuse and infuriate campaigns, voters and AFSCME members all at once.

AFSCME's supposed to be a politically smart union, but this looks like a dumb move. It puts the union on the attack against its own principles on behalf of a endorsed candidate it actually disagrees with. Since people tend to misunderstand the restrictions that affect independent expenditures, it carries a downside for the Clinton campaign proper, too. The campaign will be seen by many to have been somehow involved in a clumsy smear against both of her principal opponents. It was enough to put a panel of AFSCME members on a conference call supporting Obama and it's hardly the kind of thing you expect from a candidate who has depended so much on a veneer of inevitability.

In fact, it's the kind of thing that might put Hillary on a fast track to fourth place in Iowa. That might change everything.

Personal note.

The combination of a family crisis for one of my co-workers and a holiday vacation for a couple more has left me with a completely unpredictable schedule for the next few days. Yesterday it meant about 13 hours at the perfect tavern and today it could mean a couple more than that.

Or not.

Like I said, it's unpredictable. Until things settle down, so's my blogging schedule (not that I actually 'schedule' this stuff). I'll be around, though, so keep checking in and I'll keep trying to make it worth your while.

And if you're anywhere near Richmond Beach in Shoreline, drop by the bar. I'll likely be there, and if you mention this post, first one's on me.

An hour of ads.

Over the last hour (roughly from 8:20-9:30 a.m. local time), I have seen two upbeat Barack Obama ads; two versions of the Mike Huckabee Christmas spot (in which your eye keeps getting drawn to the window frame in the background that is filmed to look exactly like a large cross); two Joe Biden commercials promoting his plan for a tripartite division of Iraq; two John Edwards promos about rising above "petty politics" (there is a window in this one as well, but no subliminal Christ imagery); an independent-expenditure ad on behalf of Edwards (a back-door way to avoid campaign-spending limits); a forgettable 30 seconds of Chris Dodd talking to the camera; a Ron Paul bio spot; another Edwards commercial (the best one of his) about a middle-aged man in the South who endured life with a cleft palate because he lacked health insurance; and a Hillary Clinton promo revealing that she has the full and enthusiastic support of her mother, Dorothy Rodham.

The first thing that pops out to me is the independent expenditure for Edwards (by whom, I wonder). I'm a bit surprised to see that it's the only one of the hour. Edwards outgunning Obama and Clinton even without the independent spot is pretty impressive, too, considering the budgetary differences between the campaigns (Heck, even Biden's got a pair). Of course, while 'how much' is an important factor in the way paid media is used, how and when can be great equalizers, and Edwards seems to be getting some good bang for his buck in the closing weeks.

And the "petty politics" spots? Haven't seen 'em, but it sounds like 'Nice John' may be back for the close.

Since you asked...

It is me or is there just a basic difference of class between the Democratic candidates and the Republicans?

Since you asked, yes, there is a difference, with Democrats consistently outscoring their opponents on basic measurements of classiness such as courtesy, civility and honesty.

It might not always work to our short term electoral advantage. Liars, cheats and thieves often prosper for awhile. Sometimes, though, you have to do the right thing even when the wrong thing is easier, or more profitable,or produces a faster result. It's called principle, and it's Democratic principles that make me proudly partisan.

Shorter Bill Richardson…

A victory for veterans.

News from the Speaker's blog. The House has passed H.R. 3793, which affirms that a discharge due to combat injuries is payment in full of a G.I.'s enlistment obligation.

According to Department of Defense rules, enlistees cannot receive their full enlistment bonus unless they fulfill their entire military obligation. Unfortunately, members of the armed services who are wounded while on active duty are not receiving their full bonuses because their service was prematurely cut short. The Veterans Guaranteed Bonus Act, H.R. 3793, will correct this problem by requiring the Department of Defense to provide veterans who have been discharged due to combat-related wounds with full payment of remaining bonuses within 30 days of discharge.

Thanks and congrats to the House, to the prime sponsor, Rep. Jason Altmire,D-PA, and to my own personal Congressman, who is listed as a co-sponsor of the legislation.

Sunday, December 16, 2007

Bonus Heh™.

Me too.

"I think John is a winner. He's electable. He's been tested. He's been on the national ticket before. The national polls show him beating all Republicans in the general elections. He inspires me. I think he inspires other Iowans, and I think he can really rally Americans in the fall."

Sorry Hillary…

Well, yeah…

As the media keeps telling us ad nauseam: now that the Republicans are temporarily weakened by their own corruption and malfeasance, it's a known fact that the entire country wants to stop the partisan bickering and let bygones be bygones.

…and I hate that, but my real problem is that Barack's made the same line a cornerstone of his platform. We must demand more of our nominee, both for national progress and for his or her own protection.

There's a lot of talk about the minefield the Republicans have laid for the new Democratic President we'll be electing next fall. The route to successfully navigating those hazards will be along a direct and proudly partisan path. Every compromise, every misbegotten attempt to dilute our ideals in search of somemythical middle ground that turns out to be everything the Repulicans wanted in the first place, will be spun as failure by the GOP noise machine, and the sad thing is that they won't be wrong, though they'll be right for all the wrong reasons.

If failure on a particular program or policy is the outcome, as sometimes it doubtless will be, let it be a failure in pursuit of our platform, not theirs.

From the "Un-American Activities" file.

Basically, the situation is such that Bush feels perfectly comfortable vetoing everything of substance the Congress even proposes passing. Forget the "60 vote requirement" in the Senate. With Bush, if he wants his way, it takes 67 votes to do anything different. And 290 in the House.

Friday, December 14, 2007

Yeah...

I agree that…

"This whole drug thing is annoying and stupid," but despite the hypocrisy Jerome finds in Obama's response to the Shaheen slur, I can't agree with his wish that "...the Obama campaign would have just ignored it."

The last time a Democrat tried to sweep away some "annoying and stupid" charges, charges that had been vetted and dismissed time and again, charges disproved by official records and eyewitnesses, well, the Swiftboat Liars did enough damage to take credit - surely deserved in some measure - for bringing low the reputation of a genuine American hero enough to turn an election.

Nope, no matter how "annoying and stupid," a response is due to every charge these days.

Headlines.

Here we go again. John Kerry used to get a good response to his promise that he'd appoint an Attorney General whose name wasn't John Ashcroft. Turns out the problem isn't the name, it's the namer. Speaking of whom...

A drag, sure, but let's face it - he was going to keep his damn war going if it meant emptying the Pentagon and having a yard sale for the office furniture. The people who would get hurt in the short run aren't in Congress. In the long run the Bush program to dismantle the military establishment in favor of an all-mercenary force would be abetted. I don't like it, but I get it.

Why not Washington?

So, what's that mean, exactly?

A top campaign adviser to Hillary Rodham Clinton resigned Thursday, a day after suggesting Democrats should be wary of nominating Barack Obama because his teenage drug use could make it hard for him to win the presidency.

****

Bill Shaheen, a national co-chairman for Clinton and a prominent New Hampshire political figure, had raised the issue of Obama's youthful drug use during a Wednesday interview, published on washingtonpost.com.

So, Hillary's not taking calls from Bill Shaheen anymore? Or he's not taking hers? Or what?

All the money he's steered in her direction as a national co-chair, that's all going back, or what?

All his friends in New Hampshire, they're all going to stay home come primary day, or what?

Top Ten Reasons to Caucus for John Edwards.

10. John doesn't owe any favors to Karl Rove, Dick Cheney or Bill O'Reilly.9. We will all sing, "When Johnny Comes Marching Home Again" when he brings the troops back.8. John lives the American Dream and hasn't pulled the ladder up behind himself.7. No more "great moments in Presidential speeches" on Late Night with David Letterman.6. John uses five syllable words without inserting his foot in his mouth.5. During John Edward's inauguration, Ann Coulter might choke on her own Adam's apple.4. John's campaign office is the closest walk to the Newton Maidrite.3. The "axis of evil" and "weapons of mass destruction" phrases will only be found in history books.2. Americans won't be forced to go to Canada, France, or England to have quality, free health care.1. John Edwards motto is "just say NO to lobbyists."

My offering for a more global substitute for #4 is inspired by Atrios.

Crazy, crazy for being so…

· Ron Paul wants the US to withdraw from the UN or at least from UNESCO.

· Ron Paul has authored legislation saying that life begins at conception, to prevent federal money from being spent on family planning (that would include contraception), and has tried to amend the Constitution to "guarantee the right to life."

· Ron Paul has tried to repeal the Occupational Health and Safety Act, to abolish the minimum wage, and to eviscerate Social Security.

· Ron Paul wants guns in schools.

· Ron Paul has tried to repeal the Davis-Bacon Act to guarantee employees of federal contractors the prevailing wage and wants to make it easier to decertify a union.

· Ron Paul wants to amend the Constitution to end birthright citizenship.

· Ron Paul wants to dismantle the Federal Reserve and prepare for a return to the Gold Standard, which would destroy the economy.

Tuesday, December 11, 2007

I'm inclined, I'm afraid…

For Democrats that think about how a campaign might position itself best to win, the question really comes down to this: Do you believe that this nation is going to transcend partisan politics in 2008?

If you believe that's true, and are willing to bet that personality-based politics can rise above partisan-politics, then you are probably betting on Obama's campaign strategy. If you think like me, that a campaign having it's partisan-base in order is the number one priority, than you are in alliance with the campaign strategies of Edwards and Clinton. It's really a question of weather the Democrats are going into battle in 2008 as Obama's personality movement or as a progressive partisan movement.

For me, it's less a matter of the Presidential race itself. Obama's certainly on my list of electables. I'm concerned, though, whether his personal radiance will cast enough light down the ticket.

More than concerned, I guess. Doubtful.

I'm not sure if Senator Clinton offers much more illumination, though.

"OK, I lied."

Sunday, December 09, 2007

Hold on just a minute.

We don't know what those members of Congress were told in September of '02. We don't know how they reacted. They can't tell us, so we're left with the report of "two officials present."

That would be two executive branch officials. Executive branch officials entrusted with briefing Congress, including Democratic members of Congress, on highly sensitive, and potentially politically charged, operations.

Ya' think mayby those officials would have been pretty thoroughly politically vetted before that assignment? Ya' think maybe they'd have an axe to grind, or a case to make now? A motive, perhaps, beyond the public's right to know?

It just might be worth thinking about before we all jump off the deep end.

One platoon's tale…

He’d lived through daily explosions in 11 months with Charlie Company, 1st Battalion, 26th Infantry Regiment, at nearby Combat Outpost Apache, a no-frills fortress smack in the middle of Adhamiya’s hostile streets. He had rushed through flames to try to save friends and carried others to the aide station only to watch them die.

“I’m not getting killed at Burger King,” he thought, and he dived for a concrete bunker.

…and the scary.

“You never really get over the anger,” said Staff Sgt. Robin Johnson, a member of Charlie’s scout platoon who had been especially close to Agami. “It just kind of becomes everything you are. You become pissed off at everything. We wanted to destroy everything in our paths, but they wanted us to keep building sewer systems and handing out teddy bears.”

The American Intelligence Establishment...

On ABC’s This Week, host George Stephanopoulos told his audience,“You should know that I invited the CIA director, the director of national intelligence, and President Bush’s national securityadviser to join us today. They all declined.”

And now...

From the "What liberal media?" file.

There seems to be encouraging news for Democrats in Fay Fiore's L.A. Times piece on polling showing that military personnel and their families are, largely through disenchantment with the Iraq war, are leaving the Republican fold for the welcoming arms of the pro-troop, pro-veteran party, the Democratic Party. She couldn't wrap it up, though, without slipping in a poisin pill. She writes...

Now the disapproval of Bush appears to have transferred to his party. Republican leanings of military families that began with the Vietnam War -- when Democratic protests seemed to be aimed at the troops as much as the fighting -- have shifted, the poll results show.

I don't know where Ms. Fiore was during the Vietnam war and the accompanying protests, but I was in the war and the protests, as were many returning troops. I totally missed the "Democratic protests," though. The Democratic Party didn't adopt a definitive (and, even then, hardly unanimous) anti-war posture until the nomination of George McGovern in 1972. By that time, the largest and most memorable protests were already memories, and the Democratic Party didn't organize a single one of them. Most of the organizers, in fact, were likely to have viewed the Democratic Party with a measure of disdain.

Beyond that, there's the notion that protests - Democratic or otherwise - were "aimed at the troops as much as the fighting." One of the most common features of the anti-war protests I witnessed, whether from within the ranks or in the media, was a component of Vietnam veterans, usually in jungle fatigues, sometimes in wheelchairs, leading the parade. Along the route there often units of veterans of other wars, as well.

Of course, it's part of the continuing effort to associate Democrats with the New Left politics of the sixties, when any association is at best tenuous and likely of relatively recent vintage, as the radicals of the sixties (I yearn for the return of 'progressives' with the confidence to admit their radicalism. Their liberalism, for that matter.) have tempered their views over time and have allied with, if not exactly joined, the Democratic Party.

The next step in the myth-making process is to paint the anti-war movement of the time as an anti-troop movement. It's a notion that's been absorbed even by many of today's anti-Iraq war activists, who take pains not to repeat "the mistake" that, in fact, the anti-Vietnam activists really didn't make. Sure, there are the apocryphal tales of airport expectorations, but there's a much larger, and largely untold, story of the pro-troop, pro-vet activities of the sixties left. There were the legendary F.T.A. tours, mimicking the U.S.O. tradition with the anti-war artists that the troops actually wanted to hear, and the G.I. coffeehouse movement, which established a chain of off-post safe harbors for anti-war, anti-brass or simply anti-boredom troopers. The typical posture of the left reflected the class consciousness that stirred the radical conscience and saw us as victims of an economy already in the thrall of the military-industrial complex. It was in that spirit that they supported our grievances against our former military employers when we demanded attention for the ravages of Agent Orange. It was the left that exposed the outrageous conditions in some military hospitals then, and the left that joined in the demand for improvements. History, in this instance, is repeating itself before our eyes.

It's not that we felt all that welcome when we came home. It was commonplace, for instance, for Vietnam vets to leave their military history off their resume and job applications. That wasn't because the hiring decisions were being made by a bunch of dirty hippies. The Chamber of Commerce wanted no more to do with us than did the V.F.W. We lost a war, after all, and, in the view of the H.R. manager, probably lost it in a drug-addled haze. Besides, there was something about so many of us, at least for a while, that just didn't seem right. Kind of jumpy, maybe, or always pissed off.

The clarion call of the day is "support the soldiers, not the war," but it's hardly a new idea, and it was the overwhelming attitude of the anti-Vietnam war movement, Ms. Fiore's historical revisionism notwithstanding. I only wish that the Democratic Party had demonstrated the insight and courage to have led that movement.

Ya know…

"Dr. Paul and Rep. Kucinich are friends and there is a lot of mutual respect," said Paul communications director Jesse Benton. "They have worked, and will continue to work, together on ending the war and protecting civil liberties. However, Ron wants to substantially cut the size and scope of the federal government. There are too many differences on issues such as taxes and spending to think a joint ticket would be possible."

I'd feel better…

In the case of Oprah, she belongs to three different craft unions herself (as a performer), yet refuses to allow union representation of any sort inside the doors of her studio, instead paying substandard wages and benefits to non-union crews. It is a travesty that Oprah feels no responsibility to those who helped her create her billions in profit, but that’s the way things are and it’s part of the reason union representation is so vital in this industry.

Never really dug Oprah's act, but this is complicating my efforts to find things to like about the gentleman from Illinois.

Me too.

I wish the Congress to shout out their support for habeas, grab Bush and Cheney by the arms, and parade them out of D.C. with their Joe Btfsplk clouds trailing behind. I wish cold fusion worked. I wish I had a million dollars. I wish I was too young to remember Joe Btfsplk.

Getting better all the time.

Reno, Nevada – The Communications Workers of America in Nevada today announced its endorsement of Senator John Edwards for president. The Communications Workers of America represents both active and retired members throughout the state of Nevada.

The Midwest Regional Joint Board represents over 50,000 workers in clothing factories, hotels and restaurants, sports venues, gaming casinos, airports, laundries, warehouses and auto parts facilities, etc. in 11 states including Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, Ohio, and Wisconsin (there are two independent locals in Chicago who are not part of the Midwest Board and have not endorsed anyone). Beasley said the board's support for Edwards was longtime and unanimous.

The Chicago and Midwest Regional Joint Board plans to go to work for the former North Carolina senator immediately -- with volunteers, staff and financial assistance -- and will work in conjunction with other unions including the SEIUs that cover the territory and have endorsed Edwards (Iowa, Ohio, Michigan and Minnesota). Beasley states that they should have 40 to 50 volunteers and staff in Iowa within a week.

Sometimes the truth isn't easy to hear.

From a new Edwards ad in New Hampshire…

"And we can say as long as we get Democrats in, everything's gonna be O.K. It's a lie. It's not the truth. Do you really believe if we replace a crowd of corporate Republicans with a crowd of corporate Democrats that anything meaningful's gonna change?"

That's true enough. Getting Democrats in won't make everything O.K. It makes a lot of things better, no doubt, but the changes are largely around the margins. The 'better' part of 'more and better Democrats' is the hardest part.

My man John…

"Enough is enough. At long last, the spin and the saber-rattling must stop. We must once and for all reject the failed, bellicose, neoconservative foreign policy of the Bush Administration, and get back to the foreign policy I have proposed based on diplomacy, reengagement, and restoring the moral authority of America."